Putting reason into the war on drugs

An incredibly sad phenomena resulting from the current administration’s blustery implementation of its policies, including the “war on drugs,” is its supporters’ nonchalant resort to any means necessary to defend them.

And if that should include truth twisting or its outright breaking, fine.

One sees this for Marawi, as example, where social media saw photoshopped pictures of President Rodrigo Duterte in full battle gear (of course, to be explained later as a joke “trap” for the administration’s critics) or pictures of Honduran police kneeling down to pray but captioned as to make it appear they were Filipino soldiers (later weirdly defended as mere “symbolism”).

But there’s also the deflection of truth and this is usually done by resort to outright fallacies in defending administration policies, particularly on drugs.

In the weeklong period following Kian Delos Santos’ death, scratching the mere surface of social media would reveal the following common arguments in defense of the Duterte administration:

• “Why are you so loud about Kian’s death? Why aren’t you as outraged about the victims of the drug addicts?” But this is essentially a fallacy of whataboutism. Or fallacy of relative privation. Or avoiding the issue. Or ignoratio elenchi.

• “If you think that EJK’s are so wrong, what have you done to stop the drug problem?” (ad hominem or tu quoque)

• “If it were your family that was victimized by drug addicts you would not criticize the drug war.” (ad hominem, could and should)

• “Why do you keep criticizing the drug war? You’re a yellowtard aren’t you?” (ad hominem, false dichotomy)

• “It was happily an isolated incident.” (missing the point, truth by stipulation, ignoratio elenchi)

• “We have to kill because drugs are destroying the country.” (false dichotomy, appeal to extremes, two wrongs don’t make right)

At this point, a caveat: every administration (and opposition) in the country resorts to truth bending and fallacies. A cursory look at the opposition’s arguments during the same seven-day period reveals the following:

• “Kian’s death shows that the war on drugs is immoral and a failure.” (hasty generalization, appeal to pity, truth by stipulation, burden of proof)

• “The war on drugs is wrong and has unnecessarily caused the death of thousands and thus must be stopped.” (hasty generalization, truth by stipulation, false dichotomy)

The worst, of course, is this: “The EJK’s are an outrage; we need a revolution and oust the government.” (false dichotomy, truth by stipulation, appeal to extremes, two wrongs don’t make right.)

It goes without saying that the Aquino administration was utterly mind-numbing, face palm-breaking in this regard. What is unfortunate is that the present administration could have taken the high road. Instead, it doubled down on the insanity.

Even more unfortunate is that it doesn’t stop there: not content with gleefully bashing logic, some of this administration’s more rabid supporters go to the extent of denying truth itself.

Or to use the current lingo: that it’s all “fake news.”

The implications usually employed are: a) one can cherry-pick only those facts favorable to one’s position; or b) everyone has the right to choose the reality one finds most agreeable (i.e., “everyone is entitled to one’s own opinion”).

But a) is self-contradictory because if there is a truth, the act of cherry-picking is a hypocritical act of self-delusion. It’s like somebody arguing that human rights is a farce but then ends up crying for due process and the rule of law the moment it is his own son faced with drug charges.

If it’s b), then truth essentially becomes a numbers game. Which should be problematic for someone, let’s say, who (in the only “survey” that matters) won only 39% of the votes cast (29% of registered voters, 16% of the population), which effectively means 61% (or 71%) were against his candidacy.

But the tragically ironic thing about the “war on drugs” is that, if it were truly a just cause, then there was really ultimately no need to do wrong to achieve right.

The perpetrators themselves know they’re doing wrong as not one has come forward to claim specific responsibility for any of the alleged killings. After all, if one thinks that right is being done to achieve right, then secrecy is pointless.

Assuming the thinking is that the wrong is a necessity, thus making it a right, then again why not admit direct responsibility for the killings?

Why allude to wrongs one argues need to be done but then deny they are happening?

It’s just an unconscious admission that there are indeed possible wrongful acts.

It also forces administration’s supporters to take the awkward position of defending the contradiction.

In any event, there are still five years left for this administration to re-calibrate its approach and do right.

And we sincerely hope it does so because the country cannot afford a) another inane mob revolt, or b) to install as president the much worse current constitutional alternative.

Jemy Gatdula is a Senior Fellow of the Philippine Council for Foreign Relations and a Philippine Judicial Academy law lecturer for constitutional philosophy and jurisprudence.

[email protected]

Twitter @jemygatdula